Shootings leave 4 Oakland police officers in critical condition - UPDATE, officers may have died

[Liberal_in_LA]

***update, some news outlets say all 4 officers are dead*** http://www.huliq.com/3257/78757/four-oakland-ca-police-officers-dead-one-suspect-killed


Shootings leave 4 Oakland police officers in critical condition

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-oakland-police22-2009mar22,0,2334109.story

Shootings leave 4 Oakland police officers in critical condition
After 'extensive manhunt' for suspect who shot two motorcycle officers, SWAT officers raid east Oakland building. In the ensuing shootout, two officers are hit and the suspect killed, officials say.

By Maria LaGanga and Anna Gorman
March 22, 2009

Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles -- Four Oakland police officers were shot and critically injured and a suspect was killed during two related shootings this afternoon, Oakland authorities said.

Two motorcycle officers were shot during a traffic stop at 1:16 p.m. in the 7400 block of MacArthur Boulevard. After the shooting police launched a "very extensive manhunt" for the suspect, said Oakland Police spokesman Jeff Thomason.


Police received an anonymous tip that a possible suspect was barricaded inside a nearby building.

About 3:20 p.m., officers tracked the suspect down at a building a few blocks away, along the 2700 block of 74th Avenue. SWAT officers entered and the suspect fired, striking two officers.

"The officers returned fire in defense of their lives," said acting Police Chief Howard Jordan. The suspect was killed, he said.

[MichaelHarris]

1. tidbit

"First reports of the incident came from a 911 call at 1:16 p.m., reporting that two officers had been shot, possibly with an assault-type rifle. The suspect fled from the scene, sparking a huge manhunt that involved officers from at least five different law enforcement agencies."

[MrSlayer]

2. Tragic. Best wishes to the heroes in blue.

I hope the cop haters will show a little respect.

[cliffordu]

12. Me too. I love the cops., If anyone runs over me while I'm riding my bicycle

they'll take care of me until the ambulance arrives. Or the hearse.

And they'll get my wife.....

[LooseWilly]

88. Have you ever actually met an Oakland motorcycle cop?

I have.
Out of respect, I'll end my story there.

[XemaSab]

3. Sad

:(

[kansasblue]

4. CBS News scrolled across the screen that all four were dead.

but that has not been verified by any other news outlets.

http://cbs5.com/local/shooting.officer.oakland.2.964784.html




Law enforcement sources said that four officers are dead, along with a suspect after a traffic stop led to a massive manhunt in the streets of East Oakland.

[Liberal_in_LA]

5. News is reporting that all 4 are 'critical' but also say waiting to notify families.

:(

[femmocrat]

6. Yes, CNN just said "critical" at 10:30 p.m.

I am praying they are not dead.

[Liberal_in_LA]

7. Update. CNN says critical, other news outlets say they died.

[11cents]

8. Really quiet in my Oakland neighborhood tonight

I live in a high-crime area -- in fact, someone was found shot to death about two blocks away this morning, after gunshots were heard last night -- and Saturday nights have been bad lately, but I don't think anyone wants to be spotted by the police outside tonight, regardless of what they're up to.

[EFerrari]

11. That's what I was afraid of. I hope everyone stays safe.

[Liberal_in_LA]

13. Oakland radio reported that there was some celebrating tonight, as 'payback' over that BART shooting

Oakland radio reported that some people were celebrating, using profanity near the hospital and shooting site. Comparing today's shooting to the BART police shooting of the unarmed young man.

[EFerrari]

14. The Oakland police don't have much capital in the community.

And they haven't for many years. In a way, I'm surprised it's taken this long for people to push back.

[XemaSab]

18. Don't try to turn this psycho into some sort of vigilante hero

He's probably a loser druggie who went out in a hail of bullets.

[EFerrari]

21. Excuse me? It things were better, you have to ask yourself

if this department could have dealt with this individual without losing four officers.

And things are not better. The department is a mess and the community is tense. I just hope no one else gets hurt in the next few days. That's what I meant.

[XemaSab]

22. I hear what you're saying

Yeah, the cop who shot that guy on BART was an asshole.

But it sounds like these guys were just doing their jobs.

The "people" vs. the cops is a battle that NEVER has a happy ending. :(

[EFerrari]

23. I know.

:(

[Why Syzygy]

82. That was my impression.

You never hear about losing two swat cops. Wow. Very unusual.

[Tesha]

98. Well, you'll never know, will you, since the cops executed him before anyone could ask him. (NT)

[varkam]

100. Maybe they should have asked him nicely to stop firing at them?

:eyes:

[Tesha]

107. There are other ways to arrest a suspect than via SWAT teams that insist on killing the "cop-killer"

But that's not the American way, is it?

Tesha

[varkam]

111. He killed two of the SWAT officers.

He would have killed more had he not been shot himself.

Jesus fucking Christ - what is it with people?

[Tesha]

130. He killed the SWAT officers because they put themselves into a position to be killed.

Look, I'll happily grant an assumption that this guy
was the most violent criminal in the world. (That
assumption may or may not be true, but for the
purposes of our debate, I'll grant it.)

But there are other ways of arresting people than
to send in a heavily-armed army of targets. It is
quite likely that they could have just "waited out"
this guy. But no, they sent in the macho army
full of emotion to "get the cop killer" and, after
stupidly loosing two more of their own, that's
exactly what they did: they "got" the "cop killer".

Eventually, the cops are going to encounter a
situation that they can't control using these
methods. This is especially likely to happen in
a place like Oakland where people already have
good cause to see the police as their enemy
rather than as public servants. And then it will
be like that scene in V for Vendetta when
Creedy's fingermen discover that even armed
police can't shoot everybody...

But hey, sure, let's let the police ratchet up their
level of violence a few more notches. Maybe
people will keep on being compliant sheep,
even as they see folks being shot dead on subway
platforms as the cops hold the victims down. But
I wouldn't count on it if I were you.

Tesha

[Pavulon]

135. Here is one, would have done the job

no sometimes they actually have to arrest people with force. Please does not always work. To bad he got the drop on them before they lit him up. fuck him, he should have shot himself if he could not do time.

Unlike a grenade a person can make a decision about how to apply force.

[Tesha]

142. You joke now, but when things ratchet up a few more notches... (NT)

[varkam]

149. So it was the SWAT officers' fault that they died?

Look, I'll happily grant an assumption that this guy
was the most violent criminal in the world. (That
assumption may or may not be true, but for the
purposes of our debate, I'll grant it.)

That is an assumption that is neither requested or needed.

But there are other ways of arresting people than
to send in a heavily-armed army of targets. It is
quite likely that they could have just "waited out"
this guy. But no, they sent in the macho army
full of emotion to "get the cop killer" and, after
stupidly loosing two more of their own, that's
exactly what they did: they "got" the "cop killer".

You assume that they knew where he was, that he had no hostages, and what his exact situation was. Had he been going from apartment to apartment gunning down residents, would you still propose that they "wait him out"? How many more deaths would have been appropriate before action was taken?

Eventually, the cops are going to encounter a
situation that they can't control using these
methods. This is especially likely to happen in
a place like Oakland where people already have
good cause to see the police as their enemy
rather than as public servants. And then it will
be like that scene in V for Vendetta when
Creedy's fingermen discover that even armed
police can't shoot everybody...

What? How is a movie even applicable?

But hey, sure, let's let the police ratchet up their
level of violence a few more notches. Maybe
people will keep on being compliant sheep,
even as they see folks being shot dead on subway
platforms as the cops hold the victims down. But
I wouldn't count on it if I were you.

How does that even relate? I'm not denying that there are instances of police brutality or even homicides that take place - but that really doesn't have a whole hell of a lot to do with this situation. He opened fire on the SWAT team with an assault rifle. He killed the first two officers and wounded a third officer. It would seem that the only person ratcheting up the violence in this situation was the perpetrator.

[Retired AF Dem]

145. My guess is you have never been in a life or death

situation. So in reality you are talking out your ass. Keep it up, it is one thing you are good at.

[Mz Pip]

15. That's really awful

The two incidents are not related.

[HardWorkingDem]

27. Why hijack a thread with something that has nothing to do with this tragedy...

So sad...

[Liberal_in_LA]

37. what the heck? I started this thread. Was just reporting what I heard.

[BlooInBloo]

19. Yup. Look for cops going on a rampage now.

[HardWorkingDem]

28. Oh, BS...

When all the facts are in, this is not going to be some grand conspiracy. It's most likely going to be some sort of degenerate criminal.

So next time, why don't you start a thread with this sort of posting instead of where people are offering more kind comments about this tragedy.

[merh]

72. that's a crock of shit

I wore a uniform when two cops in our county were gunned down when responding to a domestic call, the kid with the high powered rifle took them out as they pulled up to the scene. He wounded a 3rd cop before an off duty cop who lived in the neighborhood took him out with a rifle shot to the chest, just above the kids bullet proof vest.

We were dazed, we were saddened and hurt, but we were not angry at the community. We knew it was the fault of one gunman and the whole community was not responsible. The only one responsible was the kid that died that tragic day.

In that same regard, the community is wrong to blame all cops for the BART killing.

Stop making cops out to be bad, not all cops are bad just like not all citizens are bad.

[LooseWilly]

90. merh is probably right in his/her wrongness

The Oakland cops are far too outnumbered to go on any rampages.

Of course, the suspects they do pick up, especially out there in the Deep East side of town, will probably have a whole lot more bruises than they would've had last week. Cops will actually get up from their long lunches to answer calls for back up. That whole little neighborhood behind the Coliseum BART station will be a thriving center of drug dealing as the cops will be afraid (well, more afraid than usual) to go in there with less than 6-10 of them together.
On the other hand, there will likely be a more festive/cheery color scheme amidst the offerings on the street shrines to the city's fallen entrepreneurs. I suspect 82nd and Bancroft, in particular, will be surprisingly floral. 85th and Cherry as well, very likely.

I really feel for the poor nail salons, barbershops, and check cashing people on that block though. As far as I'm concerned, the cops and the dealers have all chosen to get into that life... and whatever police dumbshit got the idea that using motorcycle cops to pull traffic duty at 74th and MacArthur was a bright idea ought to be fired. Sued even. Sure, they can get away with it around 23rd and E. 14th, even 65th and San Pablo... but two motorcycle cops at 74th and MacArthur??? Madness.

[whatdoyouthink]

9. I think "most" cop's

are good - I could not do there job, sure when there a bad one we here all about it...and should
but when there doing there job, and something like this happens - I,m with them and there family, at this sad moment, and tragic it is.

[hlthe2b]

10. Yes... this story is heart breaking...

The families need/deserve our respect and support.

[OmahaBlueDog]

16. First, my thoughts and prayers go out to the families

Second, whether or not the Grant shooting will ultimately be proven to be justified or not in no way justifies what happened today. I hope that most in Oakland are smart enough to realize that.

[Why Syzygy]

83. Justified?

Hadn't heard that theory. I'll go look into that.

[OmahaBlueDog]

87. It was a poorly chosen word

What I meant was "ruled a horrible accident as opposed to a criminally stupid action." It was a reaction to news that some members of the community were cheering yesterday's events based on the BART shooting.

[Why Syzygy]

103. Thanks for the clarification.

I do that sometimes, poor word choice. Thank you for owning up to it!

[donheld]

17. So very sad.

[Uzybone]

20. This is horrible

I wonder how trained professionals could be in such vulnerable positions. My prayers go out to the families and the Oakland PD.

[LooseWilly]

91. Their bosses were stupid.

The Oakland PD regularly has two or three motorcycle cops pick a stretch of a couple of blocks where they know they can write some tickets, and they just camp there for the day... raising revenue for the city.
74th and MacArthur is easy, from that perspective. No one pays any attention to traffic laws between 73rd and about 85th. Certainly not me.
On the other hand... there are so many HUD houses and projects in that area... and so many dealers and assorted hustlers, thugs, pimps, hookers, junkies, etc. that it's actually a ridiculous place to "camp" looking to raise revenues. Half the people they're liable to stop there will just give up their hooptie rather than get together the money to pay the fine.
It was only a matter of time, on that block, before they stopped someone with an active warrant. Maybe they were thinking that would be a perk, add to stats or something... but to use just two motorcycle cops??

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

I remember I once laughed when I saw them trying the same thing around 90th Av and E. 14th (International now, technically). I thought it was foolish then... but I guess some genius in the PD decided to push his/her luck just a little too far.

[depakid]

24. "the gunman and burst into the apartment, he shot two more officers with an assault rifle"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/22oakland.html?ref=us

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. How is that possible assault weapons are illegal in California?

[MichaelHarris]

30. may not be "possible" anymore Dave

At least 3 sources are now saying assault rifle

A manhunt ensued through the streets of the East Oakland section of the city. When the police tracked down the gunman and burst into the apartment, he shot two more officers with an assault rifle, killing them both, before he was shot dead by the police.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/22oakland.html?ref=us

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. You mean to tell me that criminals don't obey gun laws, I'm truly shocked.

[MichaelHarris]

36. nope they don't

guns are way too easy to get it seems.

[depakid]

31. They're plenty legal elsewhere

That's two mass shootings in as many weeks involving assualt rifles. I suspect we'll see several more this year.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. I guess we should ban mass shootings.

[MichaelHarris]

39. Dave how many is unacceptable?

If this story holds true we have at least 15 dead this month from assault weapons. We know there's more but these are the ones that made national news. 15, 30, 100 per month, what's your limit?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. No criminal activity is acceptable, duh.

[MichaelHarris]

well

that's a safe and unintelligent answer that completely dodged the question.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. The intelligence of the answer matched the intelligence of the question.

[MichaelHarris]

46. So

a thousand deaths a month before you say enough is enough?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. Again no level of criminal activity is acceptable, 1 death is not acceptable.

[benEzra]

92. FBI crime stats put the number of annual rifle murders at around 500-ish,

out of 14,000 or so total murders. How many non-"assault weapon" murders occurred this month?

In a nation of 300 million people and 14,000 murders/yr, 15 deaths in a month is far less than the number of shoe/bare hand murders, never mind knife murders, and is far lower than the number of bicycle deaths this month.

That does not make ANY deaths "acceptable." What it does suggest is that fearmongering about protruding rifle handgrips and bayonet lugs on civilian rifles is agenda-driven rather than risk-driven.

[MichaelHarris]

38. Here's the question

If this story holds true then at least 15 people have been killed this month by assault weapons. We know that number is actually higher but because some police reports to the news agencies omit weapon types that number can't be known. Here's the question for those who are pro assault weapon, How many have to die before you say enough? Body counts are higher in every instance when these weapons are used. Will you need to 20, 30, 100 dead per month? How many is unacceptable?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. No criminal activity is acceptable, duh.

[depakid]

42. Assault weapons advocates don't care one iota about the consequences to society

It's all about rationalizing their obsession and fetishism. That it harms others demonstrably- and unacceptibly isn't something they'll ever take responsiblity for- and any and every cost like this is perfectly acceptible.

[MichaelHarris]

44. I totally agree

they cannot understand how our police forces will have to become military-type forces to combat more forceful weapons used by criminals. It's not just about a ban, it's about militarizing our nation. As they purchase higher powered weaponry so will the force that protects us. When does it end, when we are all shooting each other in the streets?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. Since "assault weapons" aren't forceful weapons in the grand scheme of things...

I don't understand your point.

David

[MichaelHarris]

51. my point is

15 dead in less than a month.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. My sympathies to the victims of these criminals.

[MichaelHarris]

56. have any for these people also?

Mr. Olecki was arrested Monday in suburban Altoona on attempted homicide charges for allegedly firing 21 rounds from an assault rifle into his ex-girlfriend's house in Logan Twp. late Saturday night.....Chief Heller said Mr. Olecki had two AK-47 assault rifles along with about 500 rounds of ammunition in his possession and was wearing a vest containing six homemade pipe bombs at the time of his arrest.
http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/articles/2009/03/17/news/doc49bfa7516ab86263957694.txt

You're going to run out of sympathy pretty soon I fear. Who was it in the gungeon who said assault weapons were hardly ever used in crimes? What are we up to this month now? 15 dead and this guy in New York?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. Of course I sympathize with all victims of crime.

[Why Syzygy]

84. It is probably

more difficult to make your case when we have American citizens in foreign countries using the same weapons against citizens of those countries. Pretty much with no restrictions.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. My ownership of a semi automatic rifle costs society nothing.

[MichaelHarris]

48. and that's where you're wrong

Our police forces have to upgrade weapons and tactics because of better armed criminals. That does cost us. Every time an assault weapon is used in a crime we pay. Pretty soon our police agencies will look like a military force just to keep up.

[depakid]

50. See what I mean?

They don't get the connection between their ownership (public ownership) of these weapons and the proliferation of them both in the states and south of the border. Nor the culture that they encourage.

We're not talking hunting rifles here....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. Educate yourself please.

[MichaelHarris]

59. I just keep posting

the cases where they've been used. I know I'm not going to change any minds. When they post a "good" shooting I'll post 10 murders. When they post anger towards the assault weapon ban I'll post every time one was used in a crime. They are wrong but numbers are meaningless to them, they are immune to facts.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. I'll keep posting the defensive use articles, it will be a lot of fun.

Tit for tat and all that. I'd love to hear your solution to the problem.

David

[MichaelHarris]

75. at the end of the year

who will have the higher body count?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. You think I'm keeping score?

My point of posting them is the same reason you just stated for posting the assault weapons crimes. I'm tired of people saying that guns are never used for self defense and that you are going to be killed with your own gun if you attempt to defend yourself. Criminal activity will far outpace legal defensive use.


David

[MichaelHarris]

102. Even if

every America is armed crime will still outpace legal use. I'm against banning guns, I know it's a death blow to Democrats. The difference between me and most gun protectionists is that I admit there is a problem, I don't try and defend guns. Being blind to the facts hurts the debate. Have you ever heard the NRA say, "there are too many guns in bad hands?" Bet not.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

104. I think that's what I said.

I have heard the NRA complain about the number of guns possessed by criminals.

David

[Skittles]

119. Give it up, Michael

Medic_Dave is a gun nut troll

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. My weapons haven't been used in a crime, so you are wrong again.

[depakid]

57. You still don't get it

It's not about me, me, me- or what your specific weapons do.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. I said my weapons cost society nothing, no one addressed that point.

He brought up the cost when criminals use these weapons. So I guess he agrees my semi-automatic firearms cost society nothing.

David

[MichaelHarris]

61. I did

you ignored it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. Your quote, "Every time an assault weapon is used in a crime we pay."

How does that concern my semi-auto weapons?

David

[MichaelHarris]

64. just because

it's available. Have you ever sold a weapon? If so where is it? Do you have the complete history of every weapon you've bought and sold? I don't and I've owned a lot or guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. I've never sold an assault weapon.

[MichaelHarris]

66. and you've bought

every one of them band new in the box, never before touched by human hands I suppose.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

The one I bought was bought new by a friend.

He fired a few rounds (less than 50) through it and decided he wanted a .308 and sold it to me.

David

[MichaelHarris]

70. That makes you

truly unique, most people don't know where the gun they sold went or where the used gun they bought came from. There is a difference between us Dave, I face the reality of an AWB being a death sentence for most Democrats and I also see the use of these weapons in crimes on the rise. I'm blind to neither of these facts, the problem is most AW supporters only see the first. They will never acknowledge AW crime is on the rise, weapons flow from Arizona to drug cartels, and gangs are better armed. They will remain blind to that fact until they are at war with their very neighbors.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. It does appear that crimes using assault weapons are on the rise.

It also appears that defensive use of firearms is on the rise. I'm curious about the increased use by drug cartels. It would seem that they would prefer automatic or select fire weapons.

David

[MichaelHarris]

74. they prefer what they can get

and until he was arrested they preferred buying AKs from that guy in Arizona. He was found not guilty on a technicality. Some sort of evidence mismanagement I think. The truth is he did transfer something like 300 AKs south to suspected drug dealers operating along our border.

I'm not some big AWB guy, I hate that we even have to debate it. The sad fact is we better debate it, If I can show 15 deaths and 5 major crimes this month alone using AKs then how long will people here continue using that 3% lie? That's the one where people say less that 3% of crimes are committed with rifles. The truth of the matter is, no one keeps those figures. Unless you research every crime committed you can't possible know the numbers. I've looked, there is not one credible source of types of weapons used statistics. The 3% one usually comes from either right-wing or pro NRA groups, no facts backing it up at all.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. The 3% number is rifles used in murders and the FBI keeps the statistics.

[MichaelHarris]

77. I've seen that said also

with absolutely no link. If the crime is state in nature when do they report it to the feds? Murder and most robberies are state crimes.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. Here you go.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html

[MichaelHarris]

99. 10th amendment

participation isn't required if the crimes aren't federal. That alone makes the 3% figure low.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. They have every states numbers, look around the site.

I'm sorry you are just looking for excuses now.

David

[MichaelHarris]

120. you're missing the point

the states don't have to report to a federal database if they don't want to. Do you really believe every crime involving a weapon is on that list? I was at the press conferences when the Moscow, Id shooting happened, it took them something like 3 days to properly report what weapon was used. It was an AK. Don't you think Pullman SWAT and Latah Co. Sheriffs know an AK? Why not answer the presses questions? The Sheriff, a huge gun supporter had refused to provide the press that information, in fact I'm the one who actually pressed him on it at one of the conferences. How do I know his position on guns? I live here and after the shooting Moscow's mayor promoted a weapons ban in and around the jail and courthouse, the same jail his deputy was killed at. He refused to support it.

Now before you spout the "the ban wouldn't have stopped the shooting" talking point I agree, it wouldn't. Would stopping the sale of AKs in America saved the deputies life, I don't know and neither do you. What is known is a small town sheriff's department with only one or two officers on duty wouldn't have faced that amount of firepower from one man. As I've said so many times before, that's where it costs us, it costs us in defense. With those weapons so easy to get our police forces have to rethink and rearm. Someone from the gungeon said recently, "have you seen the guns the police have?" Two points on that, first, why do you think they have to arm themselves like that, and two if ALL police stations are that well armed why did the Los Angeles station have to break into a gun store just to stop those bank robbers a few years back?

Still don't believe the easy access to assault rifles is NOT costing Americans? I just showed you, you'll never see it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

121. At that time they didn't carry those weapons in their vehicles.

I never said easy access to firearms doesn't increase societies cost. I said my personal firearms don't cost society anything.

Here a quote from the FBI page. In 2007, law enforcement agencies active in the UCR Program represented more than 285 million United States inhabitants—94.6 percent of the total population.


So do you think that the other 5.4% of the population that's not covered would dramatically alter the percentages in the weapons used category?

I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense.

David

[MichaelHarris]

122. Well

according to you, "At that time they didn't carry those weapons in their vehicles." Now that they do have to have them did the officers buy their own or did taxpayers? See how it does cost us? Probably not.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

123. Did you read my post?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

126. Noticed you conveniently skipped the FACTS about the FBI's stats.

That's funny considering you say you are open to the truth.


David

[MichaelHarris]

127. I didn't skip

over them, I just don't believe them. I've tried and tried to tell you that some departments don't report some things to the FBI. I can promise you the FBI doesn't scour every court case in America either. I don't know how I can make that any clearer.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

133. Yes and I pointed out that the UCR covers 94.6% of the population.

You have made your point clear, you have an opinion contrary to FBI statistics and you refuse to even consider that you might be wrong.

David

[MichaelHarris]

141. I could be wrong

but the statistics could be off, I'm never one to say that I'm always right. I even admit that the AWB will hut Democrats. I actually don't fully support the AWB. My position has always been that these are weapons that police forces now have to deal with whether it be 3% or 20%. I wouldn't expect the number to be a lot higher than 3% for the simple reason crimes are committed with concealed weapons, not long rifles. There are a number of factors to question in the 3% figure though, does it count unlawful sales? What about felony possession? Does the number only show long rifles used in violent crime?

Each of the crimes I mentioned above cost us so are they counted? Those are the reasons I question the 3%, never refused to be wrong.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

143. It's only homicides as has been stated.

I wouldn't expect the 5.4% of the population that's not covered by the UCR to change the numbers very much, much less the actual percentage. If we wanted to reduce the number of people being murder with firearms we would ban handguns, all of them, confiscate the ones in circulation and make it a 20 year mandatory full time sentence for possession. Of course whoever proposed that would likely be laughed out of office and if they actually tried to make it law they wouldn't win another election for 20 or 30 years. I personally think that's a horrible idea. It would be far more effective in reducing gun deaths than the assault weapon ban though.

David

[MichaelHarris]

147. I'm not sure

we can reduce gun deaths anymore. I used to hope we good but I think we've got that genie out of the bottle thing going on. With so many on the street and criminal getting some of those easy guns it's definiatly an up hill battle. I think the problem is the NRA would fight a lot of measure to get guns out of bad hands. They may think any new regulation is bad regulation even when it targets criminals. Didn't they fight background checks?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

148. I think they supported the NICS.

They opposed the initial background checks because of the associated waiting periods. Once they created the NICS the NRA supported it. This was from wikipedia, "The NRA opposes most new gun-control legislation, calling instead for stricter enforcement of existing laws such as prohibiting convicted felons and violent criminals from possessing firearms and increased sentencing for gun-related crimes." I don't know why anyone would have a problem with that. I'm not a member though so I'm not familiar with their stand on a lot of issues.

David

[benEzra]

95. Most departments participate in the Uniform Crime Reports collection process

again, see Table 20 of the UCR for the data.

FWIW, here are the data for Alabama last year:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html

Alabama
Total murders...............................385.....100.00%
Handguns....................................262......68.05%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged).......47......12.20%
Edged weapons................................38.......9.87%
Shotguns.....................................16.......4.16%
Hands, fists, feet, etc......................15.......3.90%
Rifles........................................7.......1.81%

The 10 tragic rifle murders last week may cause rifle murders to exceed shoe and bare hand murders this year in AL, but they will probably still be only a fraction of knife murders.

Other state breakdowns reported to the FBI in 2007, from the same link:

Colorado, 150 murders; 0 with rifles.
Louisiana, 577 murders; 31 with rifles.
Maryland, 553 murders; 9 with rifles.
Michigan, 672 murders; 29 with rifles.
New York, 800 murders, 12 with rifles.
North Carolina (my state), 555 murders, 17 with rifles.
Oregon, 72 murders, 2 with rifles.
South Carolina, 349 murders, 6 with rifles.
Texas, 1419 murders, 58 with rifles.
Washington, 170 murders, 5 with rifles.

There is a pattern here, if your mind is open enough to see it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

81. You may want to retract some of these statements.

It seems that some of us who have used that 3% figure for rifles used in homicides aren't liars, NRA members or right wingers. We are just well educated on how to search for data that can be difficult for some to find. It seems you didn't look hard enough.


David

[benEzra]

94. The 3% number comes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

specifically the Uniform Crime Reports, Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon (yes, the FBI does track murder by type of weapon).

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html

The Excel version of the table is here:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/documents/07tbl20.xls

If you sum the columns, you will find that there were 14,831 murders reported to the FBI in 2007, broken down as follows:

Total 14,831
Handguns, 7,361
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged) 2,095
Firearms (type unknown) 1,820
Knives 1,796
Hands, fists, feet, etc. 854
Shotguns 455
Rifles 450

450 rifle murders out of 14,831 murders is 3.03%, and not all rifle murders involve "assault weapons."

You used a figure of 15 "assault weapon" murders this month. 15 murders a month for a year would be 180 murders, or 1.2% of the total.

The figures are not exhaustive (Florida doesn't report by-weapon-type data, which is unfortunate because such data might shoot down some of Chief Timoney's fearmongering), but the data we have do show that "assault weapon" crime is a very small portion of the total.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. The one I bought was bought new by a friend.

He fired a few rounds (less than 50) through it and decided he wanted a .308 and sold it to me.

David

[LooseWilly]

89. Actually, I'm not sure I buy your identification of cause or effect.

Here's an alternate hypothesis:

Now that the Cold War is over, the arms manufacturers need a new "market" for their products, and need to do some serious "marketing" to move product. Without the Cold War to justify arming third world proxies... a new enemy was required.
Voila: the War on Drugs.
Evil drug dealers... so we need to arm our police forces to near paramilitary levels. Helicopters to look for marijuana in Humboldt County here in California. Feds to raid medical marijuana growers in California. ATF, DEA, FBI, and how many others?

I submit to you that the dealers need to ramp up their own armaments to defend themselves from an increasingly over-paramilitarized set of police forces.

Won't anyone think of the poor drug dealers? They're just business men (and occasionally women) trying to make a buck in a capitalist system... and for the record, as a 10 year veteran cab driver in Oakland... drug dealers are at least willing to pay their fares.
(Full disclosure: as I've been "systematically shaken down"/fined for more money on the job by Oakland Motorcycle Cops than Drug Dealers.. or any other kind of hustler/thug/pimp/hooker/general asshole... combined-- well, I admit to a skewing of my own perspective)

[derby378]

97. What is an "assault weapon?"

Last I heard, there is no such thing as a definition for the term.

[hlthe2b]

86. Solution: everyone wears head-to-toe kevlar vests...24/7

and up-armors their vehicles and homes. Much more rational than any gun control that restricts assault rifles.









:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[benEzra]

96. You live in Colorado, yes? Guess how many rifle murders Colorado averages a year.

I'm interested in your perception of rifle murders compared to handgun, knife, club, and fist/foot murders.

[hlthe2b]

109. Semi-automated assault rifle deaths? rare when they occur...

but damned deadly beyond all proportion-- at least that's what I'm sure the Columbine Parents would agree. I know I'd prefer my odds against those incorporating fist/foot, club, knife, or handgun to someone wielding an assault rifle.

[Pavulon]

113. Nope they would not. No AW used there

shotguns and carbine firing 9mm handgun round. No rifles, assault or sniper. (semi or bolt action in non orwell speak for you(

Assault rifle now means any scarry gun people dont like.

[hlthe2b]

138. BS

WASHINGTON, DC—The Violence Policy Center (VPC) today released a new study, Bullet Hoses: Semiautomatic Assault Weapons—What Are They? What's So Bad About Them? The study traces the design history of assault weapons from the 1944 Nazi Sturmgewehr (STG) 44—the first assault weapon—to the current Bushmaster XM-15, the assault rifle used last year by the Washington, DC-area snipers. Bullet Hoses shows how civilian semiautomatic assault weapons—like the AK-47, UZI, and TEC-9—incorporate the major design features that were specifically developed by the military for laying down a high volume of fire over a wide killing zone, often called "hosing down" an area.

"Bullet Hoses demolishes the National Rifle Association's phony argument that AK-47 and UZI civilian assault weapons are just like grandpa's semiautomatic hunting rifle," said study author Tom Diaz, VPC senior policy analyst. "It also shreds the unregulated gun industry's pretense that there is no such thing as a civilian assault weapon and documents how the industry has in fact cynically exploited the deadly design features of civilian assault weapons—like the TEC-DC9 and Hi-Point Carbine used at Columbine High School in 1999—to sell these killing machines and boost its profits." http://www.vpc.org/press/0305hose.htm



I will not be responding further as I do not get into these kind of arguments with zealots

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

146. Run away, run away, good tactic when losing an argument.

[benEzra]

115. There weren't any military style rifles used at Columbine.

The weapons at Columbine were two sawed-off hunting shotguns, one low-capacity pistol-caliber rifle, and one one semiautomatic pistol with a forward-mounted magazine (Intratec DC-9) that the media played up. No military-style rifles involved at all.

On the contrary, the worst U.S. mass shootings have involved ordinary handguns, not rifles.

BTW, rifle murders in Colorado (for all rifles combined, not just "assault weapons"):

2005, 170 total murders, 4 by rifle
2006, 156 total murders, 0 by rifle
2007, 150 total murders, 4 by rifle

[hlthe2b]

137. re:

WASHINGTON, DC—The Violence Policy Center (VPC) today released a new study, Bullet Hoses: Semiautomatic Assault Weapons—What Are They? What's So Bad About Them? The study traces the design history of assault weapons from the 1944 Nazi Sturmgewehr (STG) 44—the first assault weapon—to the current Bushmaster XM-15, the assault rifle used last year by the Washington, DC-area snipers. Bullet Hoses shows how civilian semiautomatic assault weapons—like the AK-47, UZI, and TEC-9—incorporate the major design features that were specifically developed by the military for laying down a high volume of fire over a wide killing zone, often called "hosing down" an area.

"Bullet Hoses demolishes the National Rifle Association's phony argument that AK-47 and UZI civilian assault weapons are just like grandpa's semiautomatic hunting rifle," said study author Tom Diaz, VPC senior policy analyst. "It also shreds the unregulated gun industry's pretense that there is no such thing as a civilian assault weapon and documents how the industry has in fact cynically exploited the deadly design features of civilian assault weapons—like the TEC-DC9 and Hi-Point Carbine used at Columbine High School in 1999—to sell these killing machines and boost its profits." http://www.vpc.org/press/0305hose.htm



I will not be responding further as I do not get into these kind of arguments with zealots

[benEzra]

139. Here's a picture, if you are open minded enough to look at it:

Hi-Point 995:



Not a military style rifle AT ALL. It is a low-capacity, non-automatic, civilian-only carbine firing a pistol cartridge. No military on this planet uses, or has every used, a gun like this, to my knowledge; it is a funny looking pistol with a shoulder stock.

But if you don't believe me, look at the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

Weapon(s): Intratec TEC-DC9, Hi-Point 995 Carbine, Savage 67H pump-action shotgun, Stevens 311D double barreled sawed-off shotgun

Not a single military-style rifle in the bunch. One semiautomatic 9mm pistol with a forward-mounted magazine (the DC9), one low-capacity 9mm carbine (Hi-Point 995), and two .729 caliber hunting shotguns.

The "OMG bullet hoses!" rhetoric is no different than the "OMG terrah!" rhetoric, and serves precisely the same purpose---to get people to turn off their skepticism and support draconian restrictions out of raw fear.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

124. Why would the Columbine parents agree, assault weapons weren't used by the killers?

[hlthe2b]

136. Bull shit symantecs

WASHINGTON, DC—The Violence Policy Center (VPC) today released a new study, Bullet Hoses: Semiautomatic Assault Weapons—What Are They? What's So Bad About Them? The study traces the design history of assault weapons from the 1944 Nazi Sturmgewehr (STG) 44—the first assault weapon—to the current Bushmaster XM-15, the assault rifle used last year by the Washington, DC-area snipers. Bullet Hoses shows how civilian semiautomatic assault weapons—like the AK-47, UZI, and TEC-9—incorporate the major design features that were specifically developed by the military for laying down a high volume of fire over a wide killing zone, often called "hosing down" an area.

"Bullet Hoses demolishes the National Rifle Association's phony argument that AK-47 and UZI civilian assault weapons are just like grandpa's semiautomatic hunting rifle," said study author Tom Diaz, VPC senior policy analyst. "It also shreds the unregulated gun industry's pretense that there is no such thing as a civilian assault weapon and documents how the industry has in fact cynically exploited the deadly design features of civilian assault weapons—like the TEC-DC9 and Hi-Point Carbine used at Columbine High School in 1999—to sell these killing machines and boost its profits." http://www.vpc.org/press/0305hose.htm



I will not be responding further as I do not get into these kind of arguments with zealots

[benEzra]

140. The Hi-Point 995 is not a "military style rifle" by any stretch of the imagination,

and it was the only rifle there.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

144. So proving you wrong is bullshit semantics, just educate yourself before you run your mouth.

It will save us all a lot of time.

David

[krispos42]

80. Good questions

More intelligent than are usually asked. I'll make an attempt to answer in an equally good manner.


1. The term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban">"assault weapon" is arbitrary. As originally defined under Federal law in 1993, it included certain types of handguns, shotguns, and rifles. Basically, a firearm was an "assault weapon" if it was semi-automatic, had a detachable magazine (rifle or handgun only) and had more than two items from a list of features. Such features included protruding pistol grips, bayonet lugs, telescoping/folding buttstocks, flash surpressors, and rifle-grenade launchers. Since the features were largely cosmetic or ergonomic, it was fairly easy to modify firearms to fit the ban. Grind off a bayonet lug or weld a folding metal stock in the extended position and *blammo*, now it's not an assault weapon anymore. Observe, please, current-production California-legal AR-15s.



However, let's go with what people generally think of when they hear "assault weapon". They think of a semiautomatic version of an AK-47 or AR-15. Okay, then, both of those guns are rifles. Rifles account for less than 3% of homicides a year in this country. With 17,000 a year in America (a historically low figures, by the way), that's less than 500 per year. And this includes all rifles... semiautos, bolts, levers, etc.

So, assuming that 0% of murders of which an AK-47 or AR-15 was used were not simply done by another weapon (handgun, shotgun, knife, blunt object) then you're talking about maybe a 2% homicide reduction.


2. Media hype to the contrary, high-body-count shootings are very uncommon, although I freely admit that it seems to have been ramping up a bit in the past 18 months or so. Regardless, 95% of all dead bodies are from single-victim homicide incidents. 30 years ago, when the homicide rate was twice what it is now, it was 97%.




I made this chart from DoJ statistics.




3. The style of argument that you make is similar to the ones the reich-wing did in the wake of the Sept. 11th attacks, and that we still find to this day rife in the media. "How many bodies will it take before you realize that we have to curtail _________ rights?" I don't buy it for warrantless domestic wiretapping, or "enemy combatant" classifications, or indefinate detentions, or torture... and I don't buy it here either.


4. Republicans would LOVE Dems to try to ban certain types of guns again. I'm pretty sure the idea makes people like Karl Rove all hot and bothered down in the codpiece area.


5. It's been tried overseas. In 1988, after a mass shooting, the UK banned and confiscated what we would commonly call "assault weapons". In 1997, after another mass shooting, the UK banned and confiscated handguns. They also added 4.4 million public-area police-monitored surveillence cameras. Here's the result:




The UK rate has about doubled, while ours is a bit more than half. It used to be about 12 US murders to 1 UK murder (on a per-capita basis), now it's about 4:1. We're getting better, they're getting worse. However, GUN homicides are at a very low rate... less than 60 people shot to death in the UK last year.

Banning the owership of green-painted automobiles in the US would definately eliminate green-painted-automobile-related deaths and injuries. But any politician who said that the ban made the streets safer would be laughed off the stage.


6. Most crime, especially street crime, is driven by social and economic conditions. Treating it as a hardware problem instead of a problem of insane puritanical laws or the destruction of the New Deal is a cop-out way of avoiding the real issues.


7. If the Dems are going to go down in flames in 2010 for passing a sweeping federal law, I'd much rather it be for liberalizing our drug laws or universal single-payer healthcare. Those would actually do far more, IMO, to quell violent crime and poverty than cosmetic restrictions on guns.


8. The highest body counts in mass shootings seem to be from handguns. Virginia Polytech, for example, was done with handguns. Columbine was done with shotguns and handguns. The Northern Illinios shooting was with a shotgun. The church shooting in Tennessee (I think) was with a shotgun. The shooting at Macy's last year in Chicago was done with a handgun.

[chrisa]

131. Your view is too utilitarian.

People use Assault Rifles, as well as other weapons for target shooting. Banning anything, imo, is almost always a knee-jerk, fear-driven reaction / decision fueled by the media. Of all the things I'm afraid of, somebody bursting in here with an assault rifle, or any type of gun (or bursting in at all) is at the bottom of the list.

"Will you need to 20, 30, 100 dead per month? How many is unacceptable?"

That's somewhat of a ridiculous statement, imo, as if we "need" X amount of people to die per month before we know to ban something. Do you really think criminals go and buy their guns at the store weeks before doing robberies, etc, where there would be a record there that they just bought the gun? How smart would that be? Also, Assault rifles run for thousands of dollars new, never mind the high costs of ammo.

[krispos42]

71. Is this considered a "mass shooting"?

Not to be snarky. I'm wondering about the definitions we're using here. I would think this is a shooting spree, since it is not confined to one geographic area and the body count isn't particularly high.


To be consistant, the Alabama shooting earlier this month would be both a mass shooting (killing 5 on somebody's front porch) and a shooting spree (killing 5 more randomly as he drove around town).

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. I wonder why they burst in without throwing tear gas and stun grenades?

[LisaL]

108. Maybe they didn't know if the guy was actually in there.

They might have been going through all the apartments looking for him.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

110. I'd have gone through a lot of tear gas and stun grenades.

[krispos42]

68. SF Chronicle is reporting the guy shot through a closet door

to kill the SWAT officers. I'm assuming the topography of the apartment forced the officers to be bunched up.

If they guy was shooting a rifle from inside of a closet I'm truly surprised he was able to do the damage he did. Not only firing blind, but shooting from the hip.

The cops must have been very close to the door.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

25. delete

[Brooklyns_Finest]

26. What does this have to do with the BART incident?

I will bet that most of the cop "haters" will be the first ones crying on 911 for help once shit goes down. It never fails.

This was definatley an isolated incident, but there is a much larger story going on in this city, crime is really bad. I hope they can hire A LOT more police officers and start really policing these neighborhoods. Drugs, auto theft, robberies, assualts, and murder are the norm in this city.

[EFerrari]

55. You said you live in Albany, the whitest square mile between Richmond and San Jose.

[LooseWilly]

118. Except maybe for Alameda...

... or Piedmont.

[EFerrari]

128. Piedmont and Alameda don't have that kind of dedication.

When I lived off of San Pablo near Solano in grad student housing, the John Birch Society had their office two blocks away from my bus stop.

[Why Syzygy]

85. I've read four or more

times of "cop haters". But, I haven't seen any. Can you link to these "cop haters" so I can see for myself? Thanks.

[FloridaJudy]

34. Very sad.

My thoughts and prayers are with these officers' families.

[Naturyl]

69. Tragic.

Most police officers are decent people doing a difficult and complex job that benefits everyone.

These events are always deeply unfortunate and painful.

[leftofthedial]

93. Tragedies like this could never happen if our society would let us arm policemen...

umm, never mind.

[varkam]

101. Just tragic. Five people lost their lives because of the actions of one.

[Pavulon]

106. Yep, little banger should have manned up and

done hit time or blown his brains out. Instead he choose to kill real people.

[varkam]

112. Presumably he was a real person himself.

Which just adds to the tragedy.

[Pavulon]

114. A real person would man up

or blow their brains out. He choose the route of feces. And that will sum up his existence.

[varkam]

116. Whatever you say eom

[Adelante]

117. Damn shame

:(

[rq4a]

125. WTF? Who let him out of prison?

This guy had rap sheet a mile long. Who the heck let him out of prison? The officers would still be alive if someone was doing thier job.

[SoDesuKa]

129. Rap Sheet

It's pretty easy to get a rap sheet if you're Black and you live in Oakland. Mixon did time for possession of marijuana, fergoshsakes! Who goes to prison for marijuana except young Black guys?

We're told that Mixon also went to prison for ADW - assault with a deadly weapon. That's a very subjective crime, because an assault doesn't mean physical contact, just the threat. How assaultive was the behavior, and how deadly was the "weapon" - whatever it was? District Attorneys can get pretty creative when they want to put somebody away.

[slackmaster]

134. I'm sure details of Mixon's prior convictions will surface soon enough - UPDATED

He had a conviction for grand theft auto in addition to ADW. Also a string of offenses committed when he was a juvenile.

http://www.standard.net/live/news/167774

How assaultive was the behavior, and how deadly was the "weapon"...

It seems his ADW conviction was for assault with a FIREARM during the commission of a CARJACKING. (In California, unlawfully brandishing a firearm is sufficient to get you convicted for ADW.)

Mixon first trip to state prison came in October 2002 when he was sentenced to serve six years after being found guilty of assault with a firearm for a San Francisco carjacking, state records show.

Oh, and he was suspected by the popo of being involved in a murder.

Mixon was released five years later but within two months became a "person of interest" for the murder of Ramon Stevens, a 42-year-old who was shot on the corner of 86th and E. 14th Street.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/west/view.bg?articleid=1160450

Yes, he was a real Boy Scout.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

150. And people praised this scumbag.

[olegramps]

132. Generally speaking: Poverty and High Crime go hand-in-hand.

As a nation we must find some way to stop the high incidence of poverty that plagues our minority classes. People caught up in this subculture far too often turn to crime as a means of livelihood.

I have great hope that President Obama will set an example that can be emulated by minorities that will encourage them to pursue educational goals rather than the dead end career of criminals. The statistics revealing the high incarceration rate of minorities is staggering. Even though there is evidence that minorities are prosecuted more stringently than whites, the fact remains that they have a high crime rate in their communities.

The issue isn't guns, although I don't know why anyone needs a machine gun to go deer hunting, the root cause is poverty. When Democrats, such as Johnson who attempted to break this cycle with his war on poverty, it was the Republicans that fought him every step of the way. We might start with the decriminalization of a host of drugs. I believe that education bas been more effective in stopping people from smoking tobacco then if it had been made illegal. This would have only created a situation that was created by prohibition and now fosters the drug trade. That would be a start that could wipe out a subculture that thrives on the situation and only perpetuates the cycle that encourages irresponsible dead end behavior.